In a message dated 9/8/03 kennethgmiller@juno.com writes [in] Avodah V11 #63:
> R' Micha Berger wrote <<< It would take a lot of work that only our
> service provider's staff could do to have the web server not respect
> aishdas.org requests and still work for anyone else's.>>>
>
> Here's an interesting project for some web programmer guru to try:
> Is it possible to write some HTML code which will look at the current
> time and date on the pc, and then redirect the browser if it seems to
> be local Shabbos?
Question: if it is a problem to simply passively allow one's web site
to remain accessible on Shabbos, is it also a problem--maybe even more
of a problem--to send emails to people at a time when it is Shabbos
where they are? True, they will not turn on their computers to read
what you wrote until Shabbos is over for them, but have you altered
their computer--or cyberspace--in some forbidden way? Have you caused
their machine to be mechallel Shabbos, somehow? And what if they read
your email when Shabbos is over for them, but it is still Shabbos for
the person who sent it? Less of a problem, or more of a problem, than
having your website accessible when it is still Shabbos for you?
This reminds me of another question which I used to know the answer to,
but have forgotten: can you send a fax to someone when it is Shabbos
at the place where the fax machine is, and you are causing words to be
printed on Shabbos in that place?
And if you are allowed to send that fax, is the recipient allowed to
read it on Shabbos?
This also reminds me of something I have often thought of. Especially
in my father's last years, when he was sick already, I often wanted to
telephone my parents at or shortly after lecht benshing time (their
time) to let them know I was thinking of them, just a way of saying
"Good Shabbos." I often thought of doing this on Fridays when I had
forgotten or didn't have a chance to call them early enough in the day,
before they brought in Shabbos.
There were two reasons I never acted on this impulse. One is that I
thought it would disturb rather than enhance one's Shabbos to have a
telephone ringing in your house, all the more to be forcibly reminded that
your child is in chutz la'aratz and does not have Shabbos when you do.
The other reason is that it seemed to be a form of stealing from the
phone company, even though they don't charge for uncompleted calls.
It would be deliberately using their equipment, week after week, in a
way that you would never have to pay for. Didn't seem ethical.
Now a third possible reason occurs to me and that is, maybe it's wrong to
make someone's machines work when it is Shabbos where the machines are?
I ask that as a question, not an answer.
Toby Katz

I suggested for someone <<< to write some HTML code which will look at
the current time and date on the pc, and then redirect the browser if
it seems to be local Shabbos?>>>
R' Micha Berger asked <<< However, how is that any help? How would
serving a page that stands on the corner yelling "Shabbes! Shabbes!" to
the passersby be less of an issur than serving a page with Torah on it?
... Efshar lomar the idea has merit because they'd only try to load one
page and not a full browse. More likely, they'd just browse somewhere
else.>>>
You're right. In and of itself, it would not be less of an issur. But
I think that it would be a kiyum of tochacha, if it can be done right.
The next paragraph of my post had suggested to <<< send the user to
a specific page which has some nice gentle words about the kedusha of
Shabbos, and a request to come back later?>>>
I agree that <<< stand[ing] on the corner yelling "Shabbes! Shabbes!">>>
is usually a "yotzay s'charo b'hefsedo" situation at best. But suppose
we bring this person to a page which says something like:
"The clock on your computer says that the local time is 4:37 PM Saturday,
which is probably Shabbat in your location.
Did you know that fourth of the Ten Commandments instructs all Jews to
observe the Shabbat?
Did you know that the Torah (Exodus 35:3) teaches us "Do not light a
fire anywhere on Shabbat"?
Did you know that operating electrical appliances (especially those
which create light, such as a computer screen) is considered as "lighting
a fire"?
Please take a few moments now to think about God's wisdom in giving us
a bit of forced leisure in this rushed world, and return to this page
on Saturday night after dark. (If you get this screen then, you might
need to need to press the "refresh" button on your browser to get back
to our usual home page.)"
Who knows when someone is borderline and this positive impression might
make the difference?
Akiva Miller

RAM wrote:
> For example, if the local clock reads between 4 PM Friday and 8 PM
> Saturday, send the user to a specific page which has some nice gentle
> words about the kedusha of Shabbos, and a request to come back later?
>
> Yes, I'm sure it would be a lot of work to insert such code into every
> single page on the site, but maybe just for the Home Page, at least. Or
> maybe it can be put into some frequently-used subroutine - like where
> the logo is displayed, or something.
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not convinced that we're obligated to do anything about
> the problem. I only suggest this idea because perhaps there's a programmer
> out there who might consider such a project to be fun. I sure would,
> if I knew more about web design.
We pasqen like Beit Hillel that shvitat keilim is not required on
Shabbat. Aishdas does not sell anything, so it wouldn't really make
skhar Shabbat. The commissions from Amazon are too remote from Aishdas to
count, IMHO, although that is at least a reasonable question. Artscroll
is closed on Shabbat, so no problem with commissions here.
OTOH, I end Shabbat 6 hours earlier than the NY contingent (on average),
and sometimes access Aishdas for some ideas for shiurim. I am sure I am
not the only one.
It is not too difficult to write some script to do what you want, but
I don't think we need to.
Arie
--
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

In a message dated 9/8/03 Eli Turkel <turkel@nianet.org> writes [in]
Avodah V11 #63:
> Micha and others feel that major issues that affect the community can
> only be decided by consensus.
> Question - what do we do with issues like in vitro fertilization where
> most poskim allow it but R. Elyashiv does not and some may even feel
> that there are issues of mamzerut.
We've been over this ground before, but I must set the record straight
again.
There is no issue of mamzerus involved in IVF when the husband's sperm is
used--which is the overwhelming majority of cases. Those (few) who forbid
IVF do so on other grounds, possibly objecting to the method by which
sperm is collected for IVF.
The only question of mamzerus arises when donor sperm is used, but that
is an entirely separate question from IVF.
There is a much older procedure in which donor sperm is sometimes used,
and that is AI--artificial insemination. Many poskim have dealt with the
use of donor sperm, and I believe no one today permits it. (Possibly RMF
permitted it but then retracted, or was overruled by majority opinion.)
Where you might possibly say there could be any safek mamzerus with IVF
is if you consider doctors and fertility clinics to be untrustworthy,
and suspect that they might substitute another man's sperm in the lab,
where you are not watching them. Our posek said this was not a problem,
because this kind of substitution is so readily discovered (ever hear of
DNA, paternity tests?) and would expose the clinic to heavy consequences,
including million-dollar lawsuits, loss of reputation, government fines
and so on.
I guess you could insist on a Jewish mashgiach....kind of like preferring
cholov Yisrael to govt-inspected milk? :- )
Anyway, I get very, very nervous when people throw out this kind of
misinformation--"IVF is safek mamzerus"--because I have a couple of
shidduchim to make down the road, IY"H. All I need is some kind of cloud
to complicate my kids' life....
Toby Katz

Meir Shinnar wrote:
>A while back (I was away), RYGB formulated a novel pshat of the machloket
>of ben azzai and rabbi akiva, about ze sefer toldot adam vs ve'ahavta
>le're'acha camocha...
>Does anyone besides RYGB interprete ben azzai as reflecting on individual
>growth rather than universal brotherhood?
I must have missed RYGB's post, but a few years ago I gave a hesped for
a friend in which I interpreted it this way. I said that Ben Azzai was
referring to individual responsibilities and R' Akiva to communal.
Gil Student

In a message dated 9/8/03 achdut <achdut@rcn.com> writes [in] Avodah V11 #63:
>> However, even though it's unfair, the issue does have broad communal
>> impact. It has been tied, due to the forces of history, sociology and
>> politics, to the broader issue of what kinds of changes in women's roles
>> in yahadus are appropriate.
> I think you have just made my case that the issue of women saying kaddish
> is as much, if not more so, a sociological issue as it is a halachic
> issue. ... it seems to me that halacha is used as a veil for prejudices
> not grounded in halacha.
You are making a huge mistake. We are speaking of a prejudice that is
THOROUGHLY grounded in halacha--and it isn't a prejudice at all.
I remember one instance in which my father zt'l told a 12-year-old girl to
say kaddish for her mother, from behind the mechitza. She was the oldest
child, there were no sons or brothers, the mother was a giyores (and,
though this is not directly relevant, a tzadekes, as I well remember).
I wish I could call my father up and ask him a bunch of questions
right now, like, was the age of the girl a factor? Were there other
unusual circumstances? Did the girl (or her father) specifically ask
to say kaddish, or was it at my father's prompting--based on what
considerations?--that she should do so?
Since this happened in the early sixties, before the women's movement
got under way in O circles (even in C circles), would he have poskened
differently in more recent times, given the political implications?
Would he posken differently in Israel than in America? (I know of other
issues where he followed the majority in Israel and poskened differently
there than here, as he held not breaking ranks to be a high principle
in Torah.)
Whatever the reason, I know of no other case where he told a woman to
say kaddish, in the last 40 years of his life.
It is not true that halachik rulings can be divorced from their
sociological and historical settings. For example, is it permissible to
translate the Torah into German? If you are Mendelssohn and want to teach
Torah Jews German, it is ossur. If you are Hirsch and want to teach am
haratzim Chumash, it is mutar, a mitzva actually.
Is it permissible to give drashos and teach Torah in the vernacular,
or should you teach in a language specifically associated with Jews,
like Aramaic, Ladino or Yiddish? Again, if you are a Reformer who is
embarrassed that your flock speaks "jargon" and you think high German is
more "respectable," you get one answer; if your flock no longer speaks
any Jewish language and they can understand Torah only in the vernacular,
you get another answer.
In our day and age questions like, should women say kaddish? Should
girls' schools teach Gemara? are fraught with political implications.
The "prejudice" against allowing a wholesale breach of our previously
accepted practices is very solidly grounded in halacha. There are numerous
halachos that distinguish between men and women. Therefore, when someone
comes along who has problems accepting this principle--"Men and women
are different"--we in the Torah world naturally look to our long and
distinguished history and halachik background when we respond.
Oh, sure, here and there it may be possible bedieved to push the
boundaries a little, to allow what was never the norm, to let women do
this, that or the other. But we reject with every fiber of our being
the underlying rationale behind that perversion of Torah, so-called
"Orthodox Feminism." We reject the accusation that the Torah mistreated
women or was unfair to women until our own enlightened age. We reject
the notion that the Torah's separate spheres for men and women imply
that women are inferior to men. We reject the accusation that women
whose religious role is home-based don't really HAVE any religious role.
Between the synagogue and the Jewish home, if you had to choose which of
the two was the bedrock guarantor of Jewish survival through the ages,
you KNOW which one I would choose. Why women think that it's only what's
done publicly, only what's done in shul, only what men have traditionally
done that counts, only men's functions that are important--I just can't
understand and can't accept that reasoning.
It's as if these women hate being women, hate the fundamental ground
of their being. As if they have complaints against G-d for making them
women and not men.
"Hatznea leches im Hashem Elokecha." For MEN this principle is not
incompatible with public roles like leining from the Torah, being a
shaliach tzibbur and so on. For women, I think it is. The subtext of
every innovation in the Orthodox feminist movement, from women leining
to women learning Talmud to women dancing with the Torah on Simchas
Torah to WTG's is, "Look at me! Look what *I* can do!"
Probably the biggest woman talmid chacham alive today is Bruriah
David, Rav Hutner's daughter. When was the last time she was seen--by
anyone--with a Gemara open in front of her? When was the last time she
taught Gemara in her girls' seminary?
A woman with a towering intellect and a she'ifa for learning can become
a talmid chacham, but she won't be poretz geder to "make a statement"
with her Torah learning. A woman who wants to connect with HKB'H or
do something for her father's memory doesn't need to say kaddish with
a minyan. She can pour out her heart in Tehillim in her own room, and
please tell me what's wrong with that?
I can tell you in one second what's wrong with women who are not happy
unless they are doing what men do. They are not happy with the essential
message of the Torah, that we each have a unique mission in the world,
a unique way of serving Hashem. If you want to serve Him only YOUR way,
then it is yourself you really want to serve. And if you claim that
the halacha is a man-made construction and not really an expression of
Hashem's will at all, then you can't call yourself Orthodox.
[Email #2, titled "Women and kaddish (X and Z)" - mi]
In a message dated 9/8/03 Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes [in]
Avodah V11 #63:
> From: sacksa@cch.com
>> Isn't shmoozing during t'fillot a much more pervasive problem?
>> Shouldn't we be directing our energies more in that direction?
> So?
> If we have problems X,Y,Z, and Z is a greater problem than X, then we
> ignore X?
That's not a good answer. There is a fundamental difference between X
and Z.
EVERYONE agrees that Z is forbidden. The question of whether X is
permitted--or desirable--is precisely what is at issue. To say we should
permit X because as it is, everyone routinely violates Z, makes no sense.
To remind everyone: X = the possible distraction caused to men by hearing
a woman saying kaddish
Z = the distraction caused to men by other men shmoozing during davening.
XX + XY = a whole heap of trouble. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
Toby Katz

Joseph Kaplan wrote:
>1. What good does it do for a women to say kaddish silently? If no one
>answers amein and yehay shmay rabbah, there's no purpose to the kaddish.
That's what the Chavos Yair recommended women do, so he presumably thought
it was of value.
>In what way does a woman saying kaddish, or women meeting in WTGs,
>impact on the broader haredi community (not their own)?
Because, or if, it forwards the agenda of a particular group that is
wreaking havoc within the Orthodox community.
Let me pose another question: What impact on the broader community is
there if a shul takes down its mechitzah?
It seems like there should be none, but if you look at the she'eilos sent
in the early 20th century you will see that they frequently read Synagogue
X has removed their mechitzah or has done such-and-such so why can't we?
And these were the people asking the question! It is certainly safe to
assume that the majority simply followed the example once someone got
the ball rolling.
Gil Student
Gil Student

I basically agree with Toby and maybe the word mamzerut was not
the appropriate word.
Nevertheless, I recently went to a shiur of R. Zilberstein for
medical doctors that touched on this topic. R. Zilberstein is
a son-in-law of R. Elyashiv the Rav of Ramat Elchanan in Bnei
Brak and most important for ourt discussion the rabbinic adviser
to a hospital Maayanei Hayeshua in Bnei Brak which is chiefly
a maternity and related issue hospital.
In the shiur R Zilberstein rejected in the strongest of terms
any use of IVF in any way or fashion. When some of the doctors
who are also talmidei chachamim objected he brushed them off
and said that R. Elyashiv objects to it and that it was not up for
discussion and then it would not be allowed by him in any institution
he controls .
Again, to emphasize the issue was not one of marriage to a child
of such a procedure and so I won't venture an opinion. However,
one of the issues mentioned was the possible mixture of semen
from other donors.
In Israel there exist organizations run by raabis under extremely
strict supervision to help various fertility problems including
IVF. These organizations stress that they provide full medical
treatment but refer you to your LOR for a psak. Even with these
organizations R. Elyashiv is not willing to allow IVF.
Though Toby is quite right that this is a minority view nevertheless
at least in Israel it does carry a fair amount of weight.
Eli Turkel

*** I guess you could insist on a Jewish mashgiach....kind of
*** like preferring cholov Yisrael to govt-inspected milk? :- )
Actually, this is exactly what the hospitals here in Yerushalayim DO
have -- a mashgiach in the IVF department to oversee that all that is
done is 100% kosher.
---Rena

In a message dated 9/8/2003 10:56:12 AM EDT, T613K@aol.com writes:
> The "prejudice" against allowing a wholesale breach of our previously
> accepted practices is very solidly grounded in halacha
IMHO this is the crux of the issue. Objectively sociological changes
are reflected in Halacha-for example, everyone agrees in aveilut there
was a halachik requirement of kfiat hamitah. We no longer practice this.
If one looks at the rishonim they basically say something along the lines
that we're all istiniss now .....therefore it's not done. Now think about
it -- was there one day in Jewish history that everyone practiced kfiah
and then the Rabbis announced it was no longer necessary and everyone
stopped? It seems more likely that people started not doing it (seems
this would be kneged halacha) and then it was recognized as a halachik
change. (If not, I'd be interested in hearing how this occurred.)
I think the argument in our case is what change is acceptable and who
decides for whom.
KVCT
Joel Rich

> Is there any mention at all in Mishna/Gemoro/Midrash about women in Shul?
In v11n58, R' Chaim Brown cited Sotah 22:
> an almanah went out of her way to daven at r'
> yochanan's bais midrash, and when r' yochanan asked why she did not go
> to the shul closer to her home she said she wanted more schar halicha.
> The implication is that there is schar for davening b'tzibbur, or at
> least in a beit knesset, even for a woman (r' yochanan's kashe was why
> she went to the further away shule, not why she bothered to come at all).
> I would presume she was sitting in the ezras nashim.
Wouldn't this be a question on RHS who I understood said that ezrat
nashim was not part of the shul and someone sitting there would not
be fulfulling tefilla betzibbur.
Eli Turkel

RJR:
> This siman has always fascinated me. Firstly because the flow of the
> S"A is the levels of tzeddaka(to an ani) where dual anonynimity is
> the higher level. The Rama then comments on tzedaka(did he mean to
> an ani?) and says that one shouldn't be mitpaer through tzedaka and if
> one is, then he's punished!
The Rema is commenting on the last 4 of the 8 levels of tzedakah where donor
and receiver know each other. It would seem that any mitpaer of public
donations is forbidden, whether to an ani or any other purpose
RJR:
> Then he seems to do a 180 and says umicol
> makom one is permitted to put one's name on a dvar tzedaka(seems like
> not talking about an ani here?) for the particular purpose of being a
> zikkaron (and that LA"D is why the taz and bar heitiv say the reason
> it's allowed is so that the tzibbur won't be able to switch it's use)
It seems the Rema does not think that a zikaron is necessarily the issur of
mitpaer. Having some pride in one's positive actions is not the same as
gloating that one is the savior of the tzedaka recipient.
RJR:
> and then the Rama continues to a 360 and says it's raui.(the end refers
> to the Rashba which in my book s/btaf kuf peh alef-not bet) which draws
> on examples of publicity value(but really after the fact examples) but
> seems to focus on schar for the mitzvah(just mentions liftoach delet at
> the end. The nekudot hakesef you quote doesn't understand the Taz(I'm
> not sure why) and goes with the Rashba l.
The Shach says the Taz ignored his predecessor the Rashba to make up an
independent reason.
RJR:
> All in all Lmaaseh it's accepted but again it's not clear to me that
> this is a ringing endorsement.
What doesn't ring?
kol tuv,
Shlomo

In the recent meoros hadaf hayomi there is a discussion of an apparent
disagreement of mishnayot whether oil can penetrate better than water and
wine. They quote an answer they seem to like from Tosfos Chadashim and
Chidushei Mahariach that oil because of its sliipery nature penetrates
tiny holes and cracks however, with regard to a barrel it will not be
grasped by the side of the barrel and is not absorbed by it.
I was at a complete loss of the physics of this expalanation. I assume
that difference between oil and water is simply the size of their
molecules. This seems to be connected with the Chazon ish which they
quote that instead changes the girsa in the expalanation of the Rav
(Bartinura) on the mishna.
Eli Turkel

I tried over shabbat to go through the Rash on Kilyaim 5:5 (in Vilna Shas
in Berachot volume). It is a lengthy commentary in which he discusses
the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle.
He has some discussion of the 1.4 rule for the length if anyone can
explain it in modern terms I would appreciate it.
What is interesting is that he quotes the Pythagoras theorem (not in
Pythagoras' name) that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. He then claims that it is false
based on his explanation of a mishna!!
He claims according to the Mishna that a triangle with sides 20 and 30
has a hypotenuse of about 32 while Pyhtagoras would give about 36 and
hence the Greeks are wrong.
i.e. given a contradiction betwwen science/math and the Mishna we tyho
throw out the math.
As I have already mentioned R. Yosef karo disagrees on the grounds that
we can simply measure the length of the diagonal.
I am completely at loss what to do as indicated the experiment is so
trivial. Take any reasonable length as 1 (eg the side of a book).
Measure out a triangle with lengths 2 and 3. It does not take much
expertise to see that the size of the diagonal is over 3 1/2.
Eli Turkel

to go back to an old thread, I have recently come across by an interesting
article by rav shlomo goren zt"l in machanaim (tishre 5727) where he
makes the following observation:
The 13 ikkarim as formulated in the perush hamishna do not occur in that
form in the mishne tora (something others have observed)
three of the ikkarim (existence of hashem, unity of hashem, and lack of
corporeality) do occur in sefer hamadda in very similar form.
Of the other 10, 9 appear, but in a negative form - there is no hiyyuv to
believe (or know) them, but rather there is a problem in denying them -
and this has very different implications.
One, schar vaonesh, does not explicitly appear in either positive or
negative form, although the concept of schar vaonesh clearly appears.
Rav Goren therefore argues that the concept of the thirteen ikkarim as
formulated in the perush hamishna (and as commonly understood) was not
given halachic force even by the rambam.
Meir Shinnar

> In the shiur R Zilberstein rejected in the strongest of
> terms any use of IVF in any way or fashion. When some of
> the doctors who are also talmidei chachamim objected he
> brushed them off and said that R. Elyashiv objects to it
> and that it was not up for discussion and then it would not
> be allowed by him in any institution he controls .
This is not true. Rav Eliyashiv most certainly DOES allow IVF and I
heard the psak personally. I have no idea where the misconception that
you heard came from or what caused the miscommunication, but you can
very easily verify Rav Eliyashiv's psak with Rav Morgenstern.
Is it possible that you are thinking of a different rav?
The only thing I can think of that you may have heard is that Rav
Eliyashiv does not always allow the sperm to be gotten in the way that
most IVF patients obtain it, but that in no way prevents IVF.
> problems including IVF. These organizations stress that
> they provide full medical treatment but refer you to your
> LOR for a psak. Even with these organizations R. Elyashiv
> is not willing to allow IVF.
Again, this is not true and I heard the ruling personally.
---Rena

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Mishpachat Freedenberg wrote:
>> In the shiur R Zilberstein rejected in the strongest of
>> terms any use of IVF in any way or fashion....
>> and said that R. Elyashiv objects to it
>> and that it was not up for discussion and then it would not
>> be allowed by him in any institution he controls .
> This is not true. Rav Eliyashiv most certainly DOES allow IVF and I
> heard the psak personally. I have no idea where the misconception that
> you heard came from or what caused the miscommunication, but you can
> very easily verify Rav Eliyashiv's psak with Rav Morgenstern.
...
> The only thing I can think of that you may have heard is that Rav
> Eliyashiv does not always allow the sperm to be gotten in the way that
> most IVF patients obtain it, but that in no way prevents IVF.
R Zilberstein is a son-in-law of R. Elyashiv and all his piskei halacha
are according to R. Elyashiv. He is in very close contact with R. Elyashiv
and does not need R. Morgenstein or anyone else to intercede`.
BTW I have heard this quite a few times from R. Zilberstein and also
heard from several other sources that R. Elyashiv is opposed to IVF.
kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 09/08/2003 5:14:16 PM EDT, goldstin@netvision.net.il writes:
> RJR:
>> and then the Rama continues to a 360 and says it's raui.(the end refers
>> to the Rashba which in my book s/btaf kuf peh alef-not bet) which draws
>> on examples of publicity value(but really after the fact examples) but
>> seems to focus on schar for the mitzvah(just mentions liftoach delet at
>> the end. The nekudot hakesef you quote doesn't understand the Taz(I'm
>> not sure why) and goes with the Rashba l.
> The Shach says the Taz ignored his predecessor the Rashba to make up an
> independent reason.
And why do we think that was. Was he unaware of the Rashba's reasoning or did
he reject it?
>> All in all Lmaaseh it's accepted but again it's not clear to me that
>> this is a ringing endorsement.
> What doesn't ring?
That Lchatchilah one should put ones name on donations. Do you think
that it's possible that the Rashba was being mlamed zchut on a practice
that he would not have suggested lchatchilah.
KVCT
Joel